China does birth control in the way that only China can

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Jackal**

Flash, he does not get confused.
He simply rambles on about most points he does not fully understand in a poor attempt to start an argument.

In most cases people sadly take the bait.

To be honest, i just love the block member section

And i have to agree with luna on 99% of her points.

**ShumaGorath**

Manchu wrote:Back on topic, can I ask again what the argument between Luna and Shuma is about? I read and re-read their respective posts and can't figure out what the substantive point in controversy is.

Well , i guess the rest of the world would enjoy having more Chinese slave labor to saturate the companies.

Basically luna kept asking people what chinas alternatives to population control were. I posted my beliefs, she responded, and I responded with a graph and national comparison. Than she said the sentence that I quoted in response rather than referencing anything I had posted. I took this to mean that she had no actual reasonable responses to make and stated such. She defended the statement (somehow) and started implying that I don't know anything about china.

Thats the argument in a nutshell.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

۞ Jack ۞ wrote:Flash, he does not get confused.
He simply rambles on about most points he does not fully understand in a poor attempt to start an argument.

In most cases people sadly take the bait.

To be honest, i just love the block member section

And i have to agree with luna on 99% of her points.

I think what you meant to say was "He doesn't get confused. I get confused very easily. I agree with luna because she haets slave labor!"

**Fateweaver**

Never had to move back in with family. Always shared a house with bro the past 2 years.

I think Shuma and Luna are arguing, actually more like bickering, about China's birth control policy.

**LunaHound**

۞ Jack ۞ wrote:

In most cases people sadly take the bait.

Im sorry >.< its not really that im so stupid and not know its a bait.
I guess its my sincerity to think that there might be a 1% chance he might actually cared.

But alas , whats been said is true.

"To argue for the sake of argument" ... i guess?

**dogma**

۞ Jack ۞ wrote:And i have to agree with luna on 99% of her points.

So we can judge China now? We have your permission?

**ShumaGorath**

LunaHound wrote:
۞ Jack ۞ wrote:

In most cases people sadly take the bait.

Im sorry >.< its not really that im so stupid and not know its a bait.
I guess its my sincerity to think that there might be a 1% chance he might actually cared.

I care a lot. The issue is that your consistently factually incorrect about most of your arguments.

**Jackal**

Dogma, you can judge, but only if your fully aware of what you talk about.
Its all well and good going into a 1,000 word rant like shuma, but when little of it actually works (and is not there for the sake of an argument) then its pointless.

Edit: Since you edited your post dogma and added a lovely essence of dick about your post, no you cant

Luna, relax

By the looks of it he loves to bait people.
Oh there is a 1% of care there, but its 1% towards a new argument.

Sounds about right luna.

**Fateweaver**

Like how certain people think Tea Partiers are all anti-government nut jobs when it's obvious to an educated and traveled person that that isn't the case?

**LunaHound**

ShumaGorath wrote:
LunaHound wrote:
۞ Jack ۞ wrote:

In most cases people sadly take the bait.

Im sorry >.< its not really that im so stupid and not know its a bait.
I guess its my sincerity to think that there might be a 1% chance he might actually cared.

I care a lot. The issue is that your consistently factually incorrect about most of your arguments.

Which again , you assume im incorrect based on your experience.

And i'll say again , we both think each other is incorrect , the difference is , you have to be a "shuma" about it.

I face palmed irl when you brought up your confirmation of factory's work condition came from a chinese student that is obviously
well off enough to be in USA.

**Jackal**

Luna, but he has the facts :O
And he uses as many fancy words as he can for some reason.
Maybe trying to make himself seem smart when talking from somewhere other than his mouth?

**Flashman**

۞ Jack ۞ wrote:Dogma, you can judge, but only if your fully aware of what you talk about.

Lol, I will freely admit to never being in possession of all of the facts when I enter a debate with someone (and indeed anybody who claims they are is fibbing... unless it's something ridiculously simple like the colour of polar bears).

This is half the fun of debate and also usually why I bow out so quickly, so I can go and check something on wikipedia.

**Manchu**

ShumaGorath wrote:
LunaHound wrote:So basically what you are saying is , you feel China can still sustain its population? and will still be able to if 1 child policy isnt implemented?
If you look at the graph i posted and you take the entire difference between chinese and indian population growth to be the one child per household laws than you've basically got a 1% difference in year over year growth attributable to the policy. 1.5% growth in india vs .5% growth in china. China can certainly sustain it's population. It's sustaining it. thats not even a relevant or sensical question, now if you want to know where the breaking point is I don't really know. That depends on chinas continued ability to modernize, but a 1% difference isn't particularly significant on the short term. By comparison the UK has the same level of population growth and population density as china and is doing perfectly fine and japan has a lower population growth and higher density and is in an extreme demographic crisis relating to a lack of new citizens.

It's all fairly relative, china needed less people when it was a nation of starving communists, now it's becoming an industrial powerhouse and is rapidly modernizing into a business center. Suddenly it can handle a standard rate of population growth just like the rest of the world. I don't personally think that the policies benefits outweigh its negatives, the demographic issues of raising a generation of males (as the laws are doing since males are the ones that carry on family names) and the social issues inherent in administering such laws are worth a 1% difference in population growth.

LunaHound wrote:Well , i guess the rest of the world would enjoy having more Chinese slave labor to saturate the companies.

Yeah, I don't see how these two statements have anything to do with each other. There's a lot of Shuma-flaming going on here but if this is where it started, I think you've got the wrong guy.

**ShumaGorath**

Fateweaver wrote:Like how certain people think Tea Partiers are all anti-government nut jobs when it's obvious to an educated and traveled person that that isn't the case?

I don't see anyone like that here besides myself sebster and dogma.

:edit:

Thank you for trying to be the voice of reason manchu.

**dogma**

۞ Jack ۞ wrote:Dogma, you can judge, but only if your fully aware of what you talk about.

No, you can judge regardless of awareness, at least where 'awareness' denotes something beyond base perception. Awareness merely helps to establish the value of those judgments, which is itself a question of judgment. And, considering the extent to which people mistake differences of valuation for a lack of awareness, is also a rather complicated issue.

۞ Jack ۞ wrote:
Its all well and good going into a 1,000 word rant like shuma, but when little of it actually works (and is not there for the sake of an argument) then its pointless.

Not withstanding the inductive leaps which are present on both sides of the conversation in question: the above is an example of mistaking a lack of awareness for difference in valuation.

You're not making a substantive objection. You're pointing at someone, and attempting to come up with a series of ways to say 'I don't agree'. Shuma isn't innocent of that, of course, but he also hasn't attempted to conflate moral certitude with a 3rd order judgment with respect to the possession of information.

**Jackal**

Flash, its true people never enter into anything with 100% knowledge (im sure people will argue about polar bear colours on here

)
But you still make sure you have a general knowledge of the subject.
You never throw yourself in blind.
And atleast you check things out.

Off topic - Saints thinking anymore about thier new stadium yet?

**LunaHound**

Manchu wrote:
ShumaGorath wrote:
LunaHound wrote:So basically what you are saying is , you feel China can still sustain its population? and will still be able to if 1 child policy isnt implemented?
If you look at the graph i posted and you take the entire difference between chinese and indian population growth to be the one child per household laws than you've basically got a 1% difference in year over year growth attributable to the policy. 1.5% growth in india vs .5% growth in china. China can certainly sustain it's population. It's sustaining it. thats not even a relevant or sensical question, now if you want to know where the breaking point is I don't really know. That depends on chinas continued ability to modernize, but a 1% difference isn't particularly significant on the short term. By comparison the UK has the same level of population growth and population density as china and is doing perfectly fine and japan has a lower population growth and higher density and is in an extreme demographic crisis relating to a lack of new citizens.

It's all fairly relative, china needed less people when it was a nation of starving communists, now it's becoming an industrial powerhouse and is rapidly modernizing into a business center. Suddenly it can handle a standard rate of population growth just like the rest of the world. I don't personally think that the policies benefits outweigh its negatives, the demographic issues of raising a generation of males (as the laws are doing since males are the ones that carry on family names) and the social issues inherent in administering such laws are worth a 1% difference in population growth.
LunaHound wrote:Well , i guess the rest of the world would enjoy having more Chinese slave labor to saturate the companies.
Yeah, I don't see how these two statements have anything to do with each other. There's a lot of Shuma-flaming going on here but if this is where it started, I think you've got the wrong guy.

If you look at the 2 post manchu , they are 100% to do with each other. Lets look at the sentence you quoted.

Let me explain further:

Red: This is a true fact. EVERY consumer enjoy low costs. Hence , foreign companies will always seek buisness with China.
Now , i think this is what sparked the problem. He assume im bad mouthing westerner to want slave labor.
Incorrect , ALL customers want are very simple , cheaper items. How the chinese labor are effected are all to do with the ethics
of how chinese company wish to pace the production.

Green: Its related to why i think China had the policy , to cut down the amount of work force they have to feed

Blue: Saturating company work force is related to above. We have to know one thing about chinese work ethics.
its NOT that because they lack people , that their working condition is so bad No. Its the workers are expected to produce as much as they can individually.

Not related manchu? i think they 100% are.

**Flashman**

dogma wrote:
۞ Jack ۞ wrote:Dogma, you can judge, but only if your fully aware of what you talk about.

No, you can judge regardless of awareness, at least where 'awareness' denotes something beyond base perception. Awareness merely helps to establish the value of those judgments, which is itself a question of judgment. And, considering the extent to which people mistake differences of valuation for a lack of awareness, is also a rather complicated issue.

Ooh, you put that better than I did.

My response was friendlier though

**Manchu**

I saw these statements as:

Shuma's statement: China can sustain its growing population because it is becoming wealthier.

LunaHound's response: Countries other than China want to benefit from Chinese slave labor.

Reading them in this sense, which I believe is reasonable to do (I'll accept dogma's critique on this, however), they have little to do with each other.

**Fateweaver**

ShumaGorath wrote:
Fateweaver wrote:Like how certain people think Tea Partiers are all anti-government nut jobs when it's obvious to an educated and traveled person that that isn't the case?

I don't see anyone like that here besides myself sebster and dogma.

:edit:

Thank you for trying to be the voice of reason manchu.

Wow, gold star.

You caught me eluding to you 3.

Gold Star.

**dogma**

ShumaGorath wrote:
I don't see anyone like that here besides myself sebster and dogma.

I don't think they're all nuts. I think some of them are nuts, and that mob psychology has the capacity to amplify that kernel of lunacy into something which can dominate a demonstration. I also think that the movement, such as it is, lacks the focus and clarity of vision required to have sustainable effect on the political process. There are lot seemingly self-declared principles that amount to little more than the same old platitudes of old, and a few specific ideas which could be used to buy the vote without accomplishing anything of significance.

What really strikes me here is that people seem to believe that to be my stance, even when I've directly stated, several times, that its not what I believe. I think people often get caught up assuming that those who will question the reasoning, or information of another must be opposed to that person's general position. That is never necessarily the case.

**LunaHound**

Manchu wrote:I saw these statements as:

Shuma's statement: China can sustain its growing population because it is becoming wealthier.

LunaHound's response: Countries other than China want to benefit from Chinese slave labor.

Reading them in this sense, which I believe is reasonable to do (I'll accept dogma's critique on this, however), they have little to do with each other.

Manchu did you seriously read all the statement?
or just that 1 sentence -_-?

**Manchu**

Wait, it was only one sentence.

**Albatross**

Luna wrote:Not related manchu? i think they 100% are.

I don't.

Do you really think people here who are opposed to China's birth control policy (of which I am one), are taking that position because we simply can't get enough cheap, poorly made Chinese consumer goods? Do you seriously believe that would be the case?

If so, put the bong down.

**Jackal**

Manchu, with a growing population work will be needed.
When the mainstay of available jobs are gone people will be forced to find an alternative way to make money.

People then see this as a meal ticket to "create" work for them, but with much lower pay and worse conditions.

Que and Enter other countries for cheap labour.

If you need another example of this (but no so extreme) look at Southamption (no dig at you flash)
At one point 10% of the city were polish as work had dried up in poland.
Countless people were then charged with slave labour due to the new over crowding caused in southamption and a need for jobs.

**Manchu**

Jack, Shuma stated that China would be able to sustain its population without recourse to the one child policy. This has nothing to do with work conditions. You are connecting "sustainability" with work conditions, which was not what Luna and Shuma were talking about before Luna mentioned slave labor.

**Albatross**

If you need another example of this (but no so extreme) look at Southamption (no dig at you flash)
At one point 10% of the city were polish as work had dried up in poland.
Countless people were then charged with slave labour due to the new over crowding caused in southamption and a need for jobs.

(citation needed)

**Flashman**

۞ Jack ۞ wrote:Manchu, with a growing population work will be needed.
When the mainstay of available jobs are gone people will be forced to find an alternative way to make money.

People then see this as a meal ticket to "create" work for them, but with much lower pay and worse conditions.

Que and Enter other countries for cheap labour.

If you need another example of this (but no so extreme) look at Southamption (no dig at you flash)
At one point 10% of the city were polish as work had dried up in poland.
Countless people were then charged with slave labour due to the new over crowding caused in southamption and a need for jobs.

Yes and they moved into neighbouring flats and played loud music until four in the morning. Bloody poles!

Just noticed you live in Fareham, Jack. Small world!

**LunaHound**

Albatross wrote:
Luna wrote:Not related manchu? i think they 100% are.

I don't.

Do you really think people here who are opposed to China's birth control policy (of which I am one), are taking that position because we simply can't get enough cheap, poorly made Chinese consumer goods? Do you seriously believe that would be the case?

If so, put the bong down.

Nope thats not what i meant at all. I think you and shuma are misunderstanding it due to some sensitivity about the issue.
But if you will read on.

Wanting cheaper items does 2 things.
It creates opportunity , and it creates work force , and with China been a strong one , its a very common choice of country to pick from.

I emphasize slave labor for 2 reasons.

reason 1 as written not long ago. They are in bad condition not because they lack the work force to finish a work load.
They are in bad condition because everyone is expected to over work.

This is then linked to :

reason 2. They are expected to over work because if 7 people can finish the work load of 10 people , thats only 7 workers they have to feed instead of 10.

Hence reason 3:
An population increase will not effect the work condition because the original concept in reason 2 . Hence China implement to keep population in check.

Manchu wrote:Jack, Shuma stated that China would be able to sustain its population without recourse to the one child policy. This has nothing to do with work conditions. You are connecting "sustainability" with work conditions, which was not what Luna and Shuma were talking about before Luna mentioned slave labor.

Correction Manchu , that is exactly what i was talking about. But shuma was talking about different thing.
Thats why there is argument later. And now as well.

That 1 sentence is interpreted into 2 completely different things , hence you see yourself.

**Fateweaver**

I say we stop selling Mattel and other kids toys made in China. Then when millions start to starve because Chinas economy goes to gak. Population problem solved.

**Flashman**

Albatross wrote:
If you need another example of this (but no so extreme) look at Southamption (no dig at you flash)
At one point 10% of the city were polish as work had dried up in poland.
Countless people were then charged with slave labour due to the new over crowding caused in southamption and a need for jobs.

(citation needed)

Citation bloody not needed!